Allowed

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput v. the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another

Bombay HC15 Oct 2019CRA/106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision application challenging the dismissal of a Land Acquisition Reference. The court held that the applicant was not informed of the transfer of the reference court and the subsequent hearing for recording evidence, violating natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2018 in L.A.R. No.690 of 2010 set aside; matter remanded to Civil Judge, Vaijapur; applicant directed to appear on 25.11.2019.

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 cra-106-19-r.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2019

¶4

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another… Respondents

¶8

Mr. D. A. Bide, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, AGP for respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

¶10

 DATED : 15th OCTOBER, 2019

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2.This revision application has been filed for setting aside the
judgment and order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur, in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.)
No.690 of 2010. By the impugned order, the L.A.R. has been dismissed.

¶14

3.The land of the applicant was acquired by the respondents for
the purpose of construction of village tank. Pursuant to the land
acquisition award, the applicant has received the amount of
compensation under protest and challenged the said award by filing

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

2 cra-106-19-r.doc

¶17

Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
Reference Court dismissed the Reference by judgment and order dated
03.03.2018.

¶18

4.Learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that the
applicant could not remain present before the Reference Court to lead
the evidence for enhancement of compensation. Learned Advocate
representing the applicant before the Reference Court did not intimate
him that the matter was posted for recording of evidence. It was also
submitted that the land reference was initially pending before the
Court, at Aurangabad. On establishment of Civil Judge, Senior Division
at Vaijapur the Reference came to be transferred to the Court at
Vaijapur. In short, the learned counsel for the applicant mean to say
that, without affording the applicant proper opportunity to lead
evidence, the Reference has been decided.

¶19

5. The learned AGP supports the impugned order.

¶20

6.The land Reference was initially pending before the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad. The same came to be transferred
to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vaijapur on establishment
of the said Court. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the
applicant remained absent to lead evidence in support of his claim for

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

3 cra-106-19-r.doc

¶23

enhancement of the compensation. The Court, therefore, dismissed the
land Reference.

¶24

7.I found substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant, that on transfer of the land Reference from the Court at
Aurangabad to the Court at Vaijapur, the learned Advocate representing
the applicant in the said matter did not inform him that the matter was
fixed for recording of evidence. In view of this, an opportunity needs to
be given to the applicant to lead evidence.

¶25

8. In the result, the revision application deserves to be allowed.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i)The civil revision application is allowed.

¶28

(ii) The judgment and order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur in L.A.R. No.690 of 2010 is set aside.

¶29

(iii)The matter is remanded back to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur.

¶30

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur, on 25.11.2019.

¶31

 [ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]

¶32

SMS

¶33

3 of 3

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput v. the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput v. the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Pramod Vasantrao Sonar Pingale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shantabai Dhondiram Narwade Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Ashok Narayan Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others